May you Rest In Peace.

[ccharles000]

Tomorrow The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution will be put to rest tomorrow. Lets all pray that it will one day be resurrected.

“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

[ColbertWatcher]

1. R.I.P. 4th, we hardly knew ye. n/t

[Maccagirl]

2. It dies not with a bang, but a whimper

I don't see the outrage, do you?

[NattPang]

3. I think our 4th Amendment died with the passage of the Patriot Act(s) I & II

Executive Summary
USAPA II, like its predecessor, is a grab bag of provisions spread throughout the legal landscape. One clear difference exists however. Unlike USAPA, USAPA II has no provisions that "sunset" after a certain time. All of its changes are permanent.

The breadth of USAPA II does make it difficult to break the bill down into neat categories. Nonetheless, many of the changes do fall into general areas. These are: 4

Privacy Invasions. USAPA II dramatically widens the powers of government to invade the privacy of Americans and others living here. This includes:
Broad new authority to compel information from ISPs, friends, relatives, businesses and others, all without informing you.

Immunity for businesses that voluntarily turn over your information to law enforcement.

Extra punishment for use of cryptography-- no connection to terrorism needed.

Instant police access to your credit reports upon certification that they are sought "in connection with their duties" -- again, with no connection to terrorism needed.

Relaxed requirement of specificity for warrants for multi-use devices like PDAs and computers with telephonic capabilities.

DNA collected from all terrorism suspects/DNA database information open to all law enforcement.
Less judicial oversight of surveillance.

More "End Runs" Around Limitations on Surveillance and Information Sharing. Federal, state and local officials can now freely share information, regardless of the original reason for gathering it. This includes information in your credit reports, educational records and visa records. It also includes information obtained by administrative subpoenas of any business, from your ISP to your credit card company to your grocer. It also includes DNA database information and information obtained through the secret court processes of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Much of this sharing need not have any relationship to terrorism investigation.

Gag Orders and Increased Governmental Secrecy. The "sunshine of public review" is a key check on abuses of governmental power. But USAPA II makes it even harder for the public to evaluate what the government is doing with its broad new powers. USAPA II allows gag orders for subpoenas that force third parties to turn over information about their friends, loved ones or customers while making it unlawful for them to tell anyone except their lawyers about the subpoena. In a similar vein, the law creates broad new exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act for terrorism detainee information, prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from warning the public about environmental dangers from chemical releases and reduces the ability of judges to force the government to present its evidence in open court.

Expanded Reach of Powers under the Control of Secret Courts. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted more than 20 years ago to handle the special problem of non-criminal investigation of foreign intelligence activities in the United States. For this limited purpose, Congress established an unprecedented secret court system. USAPA expanded the reach of FISA and the secret court dramatically, and USAPA II goes even further. Under USAPA II, the secret court will be able to authorize searches of individuals with no connection to foreign governments or even terrorist organizations. It will increase the length of surveillance and decrease court oversight from the already low levels set by USAPA.

Not Targeted to Terrorism. As with its predecessor, USAPA II contains many provisions that appear to be nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to increase governmental powers in areas unrelated to terrorism. In other areas, while terrorism is included, the provisions are not limited to terrorism-related investigations. These include government access to credit reports, sentence enhancements for using encryption, and sharing of some FISA-obtained information.
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php

[mmonk]

4. As we move to a one party state, they probably felt it important

in order to quell dissent.

[Fox Mulder]

5. What are you referring to?

I thought it was already gone with the Patriot Act...

[Breeze54]

6. The Death Watch begins.....

Storm clouds gather....








If you ever get the chance again for Freedom.... :(

[OkieD]

7. Ditto

I thought we lost it with the Patriot Act.......where was all the righteous indignation then?

[Breeze54]

9. The real question is, "Where the HELL were you?!"

:grr:

[merh]

8. You people need to heed your own advice and stop believing the

spin miesters.

It does not die tomorrow, no act of congress can kill the constitution.

[mmonk]

10. But it can die for a generation.

It has before.

[merh]

11. It has been in a coma under Bush

I wish you would go read the FISA legislation, you would see that the bill specifically provides that the 1st and 4th amendment rights of US citizens will not be infringed - it protects their rights more so than the existing FISA law does.

[mmonk]

12. The 4th amendment doesn't allow for mass gathering

of information of people in secret without consent. It is supposed to be specific. This isn't constitutional. It still violates the 4th amendment. It's a defacto blanket warrant without probable cause against the citizens of the US.
http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file902_35782.pdf

[merh]

15. Let me ask you.

If this law is so clearly unconstitutional to you and everyone else, do you think a court of law that has been hearing these lawsuits will readily accept it and follow it?

Keep in mind that the courts have invested time and a great deal of effort in the matters presently before them, do you think that they will simply go "okay, now we must let it go" - do you think they are not aware of the constitutional issues involved and the violations of law?

[Popol Vuh]

16. Dude! Where The Hell Have You Been?

Here's just a few examples:

RICO Act = Unconstitutional

Controlled Substance Act = Unconstitutional

Federal Reserve Act = Unconstitutional

Patriot Act = Unconstitutional

So why would FISA be any different? If you don't understand why all of these are indeed unconstitutional then I am sorry, but, you don't have a full understanding of the constitution.

[mmonk]

17. Let me put it this way (and the same way I heard a Constitutional

lawyer put it); it goes against everything I was taught.

[merh]

18. And the judges hearing these cases will probably be of the same

mindset.

If it passes I am willing to bet that the courts will find it unconstitutional and will reject it. Courts don't like it when elected folks try to interfere in their jobs and with the system.

[mmonk]

20. We have to depend on that.

The problem is, many new judges of the Federalist Society believe we've gotten the Constitution wrong for around 200 years and certainly since 1937. The Constitution has had a swing vote so far. Parts of the Constitution are hanging on by a thread.

[merh]

21. The judge hearing that AT&T case seems to be

a very responsible judge, he hasn't allowed the defendants' efforts to dodge responsibility by using "state secrets" - also, please remember that the illegal monitoring of US citizens began before 9/11 and is not covered by this new legislation.

Feingold failed to mention in his speech that at one point, it was White House Counsel Gonzales and not the AG or any of his reps that authorized the surveillance and WH counsel is not under this law or under the existing law an authorized person to approve the directives. That information is in the Senate committee report he references.

[mmonk]

22. We'll have to leave it up to process.

As far as what's covered and not covered in this new bill, it doesn't matter when it's unconstitutional on it's face. My peeve at the party leadership is why put my rights at risk to begin with? Anyone who does does not have my best interest in mind.

[liberalitch]

13. Here come the Writs of Assistance!

What's next? Quartering soldiers?

[mmonk]

14. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

We've gone further than I've ever dreamed. Turns out our democracy and Constitution were weaker than further thought.

[tekisui]

19. Weak enough to be manipulated and exploited.

But, strong enough, IMO, to be corrected. It will be a long, hard battle, but can be.

[zanne]

23. We should have a Fourth Amendment forum.

After all, we have an "RKBA" Second Amendment forum.